RICHPLANET.NET FORUM : WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME.  THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.<br>
There is still no decision on whether new members will be added.  This can only happen when suitable moderators are in place, who are not easy to find for obvious reasons. www.richplanet.net community built on miniBB / RICHPLANET.NET FORUM : WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.
There is still no decision on whether new members will be added. This can only happen when suitable moderators are in place, who are not easy to find for obvious reasons.
/

ENVIRONMENT

 Page:  ««  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  93  94  95  »» 
dreamkatcher
Member
#61 | Posted: 9 Oct 2010 02:49
Reply 
dreamkatcher
Member
#62 | Posted: 9 Oct 2010 03:03
Reply 
A chemical tanker with 6,000 tons of solvent on board has collided with a massive cargo ship in the English Channel.

The crash happened at 4.30am around 60 miles off Finistere on the north western coast of France.

The 120m-long YM Uranus is carrying a cargo of highly flammable heavy pygas - a type of gasoline.

It has a level of toxicity but evaporates quickly.

Uranus' manager, V.Ships, has said there are no reports of pollution.

According to maritime services in Brest, all 13 crew from the vessel have been rescued.

They apparently abandoned ship in lifeboats after the crash and were then picked up by helicopter.

The cargo ship involved - the Panama-registered Hanjin Rizhao - is around 25 times the size of the 7,000-ton Uranus.

Early French media reports claimed the tanker was in "great difficulty" - but it is now being towed to Brest.

V.Ships spokesman Patrick Adamson told Sky News: "There's no further ingress of water and there is no likelihood of the vessel sinking."
Starseed
Guest
#63 | Posted: 9 Oct 2010 13:56
Reply 
Joe:
That's why you ran off the forum last time! I think you should piss off again - and this time for good.

Charming. I mention bad grammar and get this. I even apologised for mentioning it. It`s a bloody good job I couldn`t care less. Anyway, spat over now yes? There is a depopulation -Taxation agenda based on massive fraud going on out there. I suggest we talk about the facts and about what is happening. OK?
Starseed
Guest
#64 | Posted: 9 Oct 2010 13:58
Reply 
dreamkatcher:
A chemical tanker with 6,000 tons of solvent on board has collided with a massive cargo ship in the English Channel.

The crash happened at 4.30am around 60 miles off Finistere on the north western coast of France.

The 120m-long YM Uranus is carrying a cargo of highly flammable heavy pygas - a type of gasoline.

It has a level of toxicity but evaporates quickly.

Uranus' manager, V.Ships, has said there are no reports of pollution.

According to maritime services in Brest, all 13 crew from the vessel have been rescued.

They apparently abandoned ship in lifeboats after the crash and were then picked up by helicopter.

The cargo ship involved - the Panama-registered Hanjin Rizhao - is around 25 times the size of the 7,000-ton Uranus.

Early French media reports claimed the tanker was in "great difficulty" - but it is now being towed to Brest.

V.Ships spokesman Patrick Adamson told Sky News: "There's no further ingress of water and there is no likelihood of the vessel sinking."

Is it that shipping is dangerous and these things happen from time to time? Or is it that it is happening more often and for a purpose? What is going on?
Joe
Member
#65 | Posted: 9 Oct 2010 15:26
Reply 
Starseed:
Charming. I mention bad grammar and get this

There is no bad grammar and you know it. But I have noticed that you do seem to find it hard to grasp anything when people talk to you. Things have got to be explained to you over and over again, until you get the message.

And you are not sorry. You only say you're sorry, because you fear retribution afterwards.

You are the sort of person that gets up everyone's nose, and then life backfires on you - that's why you are such a nasty person.
Starseed
Guest
#66 | Posted: 9 Oct 2010 16:05 | Edited by: Starseed
Reply 
Joe:
There is no bad grammar and you know it. But I have noticed that you do seem to find it hard to grasp anything when people talk to you. Things have got to be explained to you over and over again, until you get the message.

And you are not sorry. You only say you're sorry, because you fear retribution afterwards.

You are the sort of person that gets up everyone's nose, and then life backfires on you - that's why you are such a nasty person.

You are becoming quite boring now Joe. I believe that you seem to have a mental defect.
First you take offence at insignificant nothings and then you seem to be incapable of moving on from these absurd trivial things. You have some need to keep up an irrelevant unnecessary war of words. I have moved on from this inane trivia.

Now unless you are going to make a comment or an observation that has something to do with the title of this thread: 'ENVIRONMENT' - Please STOP ruining this thread for everyone else. Thank you.
Starseed
Guest
#67 | Posted: 9 Oct 2010 17:11
Reply 
The History of the Global Warming Scare



The IPCC was formed in 1988 with the purpose of assessing "the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change." -- i.e. its main goal is based on the assumption of "human-induced climate change" there was never an attempt to evaluate the scientific evidence of the cause.

The rest:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/history_of_global_warming_scare.html
Starseed
Guest
#68 | Posted: 9 Oct 2010 17:13
Reply 
The Climategate Inquiries

A detailed assessment of the Climategate inquiries set up by the University of East Anglia and others which finds that they avoided key questions and failed to probe some of the most serious allegations. The report The Climategate Inquiries, written by Andrew Montford and with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate.

For the full report click here:
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf
Starseed
Guest
#69 | Posted: 9 Oct 2010 17:14
Reply 
Understanding the Climategate Inquiries



News broke on or around 19 November 2009 that a large archive of emails and files from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the UK had been released on the internet. The contents of the files were sufficiently disconcerting to the public, governments and university administrations that a number of inquiries were established. Several of my research projects were discussed not only in the so-called "Climategate" emails themselves, but also in the investigations, and I made detailed submissions of evidence to three of the panels. Consequently I take considerable interest in the outcome of these inquiries, especially with regards to whether they approached the issues impartially, investigated thoroughly and drew valid conclusions that fully reflected the evidence.

Read more:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/understanding_climategate_inquiries.html
Starseed
Guest
#70 | Posted: 9 Oct 2010 17:16
Reply 
The Developing Diversity Scam



Even with all of the recent scandal surrounding the purveyors of climate change pap, many in the "news media" continue to crank out party-line articles blaming all of Earth's ecological woes on humanity. After decades of trying to alarm the public over a human caused "sixth mass extinction" and more recently, dwindling diversity, some in the media just can't let go of AGW as the root of all evil.

In detail:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/diversity_scam.html
Starseed
Guest
#71 | Posted: 9 Oct 2010 17:20 | Edited by: Starseed
Reply 
Proved: There is No Climate Crisis



Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN's climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is "climate sensitivity" (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2's effect on temperature in the IPCC's latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

- Lord Monckton's paper reveals that

- The IPCC's 2007 climate summary overstated CO2's impact on temperature by 500-2000%;

- CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 F (0.6 C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;

- Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;

- The IPCC's values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;

- The IPCC's values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;

- "Global warming" halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;

- Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;

- The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists' draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;

- It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;

- Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;

- In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

The best climate talk ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8
Starseed
Guest
#72 | Posted: 9 Oct 2010 17:35
Reply 
Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?

THE FACT of warming tells us nothing of the cause. Yet the scientific consensus is that, though the rapid climatic warming from 1906 to 1940 was a natural recovery from the historically low temperatures of the Little Ice Age, it is we who are chiefly to blame for the equally rapid warming from 1975 to the present. Since some climatologists challenge this consensus, can we settle the debate by predicting with models and then detecting by observation a characteristic "signature" in the climate data that allows us definitively to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural warming of the Earth's atmosphere? This paper answers that key question.


No correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperature

"On this analysis, "global warming" is unlikely to be dangerous and extremely unlikely to be catastrophic."

Please direct any MSM brainwashed uneducated 'believers' to this site:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/greenhouse_warming_what_greenhouse_warming _.html
Joe
Member
#73 | Posted: 9 Oct 2010 17:44 | Edited by: Joe
Reply 
Starseed:
You are becoming quite boring now Joe. I believe that you seem to have a mental defect.
First you take offence at insignificant nothings and then you seem to be incapable of moving on from these absurd trivial things. You have some need to keep up an irrelevant unnecessary war of words. I have moved on from this inane trivia.

Now unless you are going to make a comment or an observation that has something to do with the title of this thread: 'ENVIRONMENT' - Please STOP ruining this thread for everyone else. Thank you.

I know your sort, you say something wrong and nasty to people and then you want to move on at your convenience - till the next time. Well it does not work that way, people get sick of you, and we don't forget your nasty rant.

You are an ill-mannered person and you don't belong here (except in a mental institution).

As I've said before, nobody can have a proper discussion with you, you get nasty and childish with everyone at some point.

Your family must have a hellish life, putting up with a mental retard like you!

I do not wish to talk this way, but you bring out the worst in people. How can anyone move on, after what you say - you leave a bad taste in the mouth.
Starseed
Guest
#74 | Posted: 9 Oct 2010 18:19 | Edited by: Starseed
Reply 
You just can not control yourself can you?

You are ruining this thread - and that is all you are doing.

I am assuming that you are trying to destroy this forum?

You never post anything new,

You hardly ever, (if at all) start a topic for discussion.

What is your interest if you don`t mind me asking? Why are you here? If it is to ruin threads that contain useful information then well done! You are almost achieving that goal.

I can`t take any of the drivel you are posting now seriously at all. You have become a cartoon character. I don`t know if you are going through some personal difficulties at the moment so I will be well mannered and not rise to your constant barrage of utter nonsense.

But, please Joe, Get yourself sorted out and back on an even keel. And quickly.



Don`t make me have to spray you...
Joe
Member
#75 | Posted: 9 Oct 2010 18:32 | Edited by: Joe
Reply 
Starseed:
You are ruining this thread - and that is all you are doing.

I am assuming that you are trying to destroy this forum?

Alright Mr. Retard,

Let's put it this way, if there were enough people on here to have a proper voting system, how long do you think you will last? I think you would be voted off here overwhelmingly.

The forum was already destroyed the day you started!


And this reminds me of you!
 Page:  ««  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  93  94  95  »» 
Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Image Link  URL Link 

   
» Username  » Password 
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please enter your login/password details upon posting a message, or sign up first
TO JOIN THIS FORUM: WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.
We may be considering adding new members on a "block basis". We will collect new member requests and then introduce a new batch. The new memebrs will be identifiable by a prefix in their username as a "new member". Anyone considered to be trolling or causing trouble will be immedialtey removed. To be put on the list please email richard@richplanet.net AND GIVE YOUR US NAME, A USERNAME, PASSWORD. I would imagine a new batch of new members will be added in January 2012.
 

Forums are powered by miniBB®